INITIAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY NORWAY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 25, PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE FRAMEWORK
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES
CONTENTS
page
PART I ... 2
1.1 Introductory remarks... 2
1.2 Recent statements by the Government regarding its policy in respect of national minorities... 2
1.3 Presentation of the Framework Convention to the general public and relevant authorities... 3
1.4 Status of international law in Norwegian law... 4
1.5 Constitutional structure... 5
1.6 Historical background... 6
1.7 Demography... 13
1.8 General information for 1999... 14
PART II ... 15
2. ARTICLE 1... 15
3. ARTICLE 3... 18
4. ARTICLE 4... 21
5. ARTICLE 5... 25
6. ARTICLE 6... 30
7. ARTICLE 7... 35
8. ARTICLE 8... 35
9. ARTICLE 9... 36
10. ARTICLE 10... 39
11. ARTICLE 11... 40
12. ARTICLE 12... 43
13. ARTICLE 13... 47
14. ARTICLE 14... 47
15. ARTICLE 15... 51
16. ARTICLE 16... 54
17. ARTICLE 17... 54
18. ARTICLE 18... 55
Appendices ... 56
PART I
1.1 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
This report describes the implementation of the provisions of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in Norway. The groups of persons considered to be national minorities in Norway are Jews, Kven (people of Finnish descent living in northern Norway), Roma/Gypsies, the Romani people/Travellers and Skogfinn (people of Finnish descent living in southern Norway).
The Sami people in Norway are also a national minority in the terms of international law. However, the Sámediggi (the Sami Assembly) has declared that it does not consider the Framework Convention to be applicable to the Sami people, since as an indigenous people the Sami have legal and political rights that exceed those covered by the provisions of the convention. In keeping with the wish of the Sámediggi, therefore, the Sami people will not be discussed in this report. Instead, Norway’s reports on the implementation of ILO Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries are appended hereto.
1.2 RECENT STATEMENTS BY THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING ITS POLICY IN RESPECT OF NATIONAL MINORITIES
On 8 December 2000 the Government presented a report to the Storting (the
Norwegian parliament) on its policy in respect of national minorities (Report No. 15 (2000-2001) to the Storting on National Minorities in Norway). The report deals with policy in respect of Jews, Kven, Roma/Gypsies, the Romani people/Travellers and Skogfinn. It does not discuss official policy as regards the Sami people in Norway, both because Sami policy is defined in principle by Article 110 a of the Constitution of
Norway, the Sami Act and the status of the Sami as an indigenous people, and because the Government presents a separate report to the Storting on Sami policy every four years (the next report will be submitted in spring 2001).
The report to the Storting on national minority policy is part of the follow-up of Norway’s ratification of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Among other things, it contains a review and evaluation of Norway’s international obligations in this field, and examines the
principles and legal foundation on which the policy is based. The report discusses ways of ensuring equal conditions for participation in society and the preservation of
language, culture and cultural identity, and describes official plans for further work in this field.
Government policy is based on the principle that cultural plurality is positive. Everyone living in Norway, regardless of their background, shall have genuinely equal
opportunities, equal rights and equal obligations to participate in society and make use
of their resources. Racism and discrimination are contrary to our fundamental values and must be combated actively. In its report to the Storting, the Government also states that it will seek to promote a society that fosters the conditions necessary to enable persons belonging to minorities to express, maintain and develop their identity, both within their own group and in community with the rest of society.
The Government considers it a goal to ensure, as far as possible, that the needs of minority groups are met within the framework of the general policy, for instance by adapting general schemes that also meet the needs of national minorities. However, the Government recognizes that some minority needs can only be met by means of special measures designed for these groups as a community, for instance in the media and education sectors.
In its Report to the Storting, the Government strongly condemns the abuses committed against the Romani people/Travellers. Moreover, the Government regrets the
Norwegianization policy to which all the national minorities have been subjected, and apologizes on behalf of the state for the way in which the minorities have been treated.
The Report was debated in the Storting 20 February 2001.
1.3 PRESENTATION OF THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND RELEVANT AUTHORITIES
Before Norway ratified the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in 1999, the question of Norwegian ratification was submitted to all government ministries and a number of other bodies for consultative comment.
After the convention was ratified, the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development was given responsibility for coordinating central government policy particularly concerning the national minorities in Norway. To ensure that central
government policy in various areas is in line with the Framework Convention and other legislation, the Ministry established an interministerial coordinating committee in 1999.
This committee plays an important role in increasing the knowledge in the ministries of the rights of national minorities. The Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development is also responsible for dealing with matters submitted to the Ministry for consultative comment. This ensures that the rights of national minorities are
emphasized in public documents concerning them.
The authorities also publish a newsletter on national minorities, which is aimed at increasing knowledge of national minorities, including their rights pursuant to the Framework Convention. The first newsletter was published in January 2001. This publication will be issued two to three times a year and will be sent to all municipalities, national minorities’ organizations and other interested parties.
1.4 STATUS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN NORWEGIAN LAW
Norwegian law is based on a dualistic principle, whereby a special implementation act is required in order for an international treaty to apply as Norwegian internal law. In other words, treaties by which Norway is bound do not automatically apply as internal legal rules. However, this basic principle is modified by the fact that international legal provisions will be weighty sources of law when determining Norwegian law. Norwegian law is presumed to be in accordance with international law.
The implementation of human rights conventions into Norwegian law has traditionally been effected by ascertaining that Norwegian law is in accordance with the
requirements of the conventions (ascertainment of legal harmony).
However, by Act of 21 May 1999 No. 30 relating to the strengthening of the status of human rights in Norwegian law (the Human Rights Act), the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as the protocols to these Conventions, were incorporated into Norwegian legislation. Pursuant to section 1, the purpose of the Act is to strengthen the status of human rights in Norwegian law. Thus, the purpose is to strengthen the status of all human rights, not just the rights enshrined in the
incorporated conventions. Section 3 of the Act declares that the provisions of the incorporated conventions shall take precedence over any other Norwegian legislation that may conflict with them.
In Proposition No. 3 (1998-99) to the Odelsting, the Government pointed out that adoption of the Act does not preclude the subsequent further implementation of other conventions. In connection with the Storting’s adoption of the Human Rights Act, the Government was requested to prepare the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Work on implementing the CRC has already begun. The Government’s Plan of Action for Human Rights (Report No. 21 (1999-2000 to the Storting)) also makes provision for the implementation into Norwegian
legislation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). Moreover, the Government has stated that the general practice, pursuing the ascertainment of legal harmony in connection with ratification, should be abandoned and that the question of how a human rights convention should be implemented into Norwegian law should instead be considered in each individual case in relation to the convention concerned.
The Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National
Minorities was implemented into Norwegian law by ascertainment of legal harmony. In Proposition No. 80 (1997-1998) to the Storting regarding Consent to Ratification of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention of 1 February 1995 for the Protection of National Minorities, it was concluded that the convention entailed no new rights in
relation to existing Norwegian law. Therefore, no legislative amendments were considered necessary in connection with Norwegian ratification.
1.5 CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE 1.5.1 The central government authorities
Norway is a constitutional monarchy with a democratic, parliamentary system of government. The Constitution of Norway of 1814 is based on the principle of the separation of powers,
whereby the Storting (the popularly elected national assembly) has the legislative power, the King the executive power and the courts of law the judicial power. Through constitutional customary law, the personal power of the King has been replaced by parliamentarism, so that today executive power is wielded by the Government. Under the parliamentary system, the Government is politically accountable for its actions to the Storting.
1.5.2 Local and regional public administration
Norway has a system of local self-government. The country is divided into 435
municipalities (local units) and 19 counties (regional units). Norwegian municipalities and counties are separate, self-governing legal entities, have popularly elected bodies and have the power to levy taxes and appropriate funds. Municipalities and counties are on the same level of government, but have different administrative functions. Counties are assigned functions for which it is practical to have geographical units that are larger than municipalities, such as the operation of upper secondary schools and business development.
Counties and municipalities only have the powers granted them by national legislation;
all authority ultimately lies with the central government authorities (the Storting and the Government). Thus, Norway is not a federal state. However, the central government delegates a large part of its authority to make political decisions to municipalities and counties. Much of the work of public administration is also carried out at this level.
1.6 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1.6.1 Introduction
Jews, Kven, Roma, the Romani people/Travellers and Skogfinn all have a long history in Norway. Some of the groups appeared on the scene in Norway as early as the 16th and 17th century. At that time, Norway was part of a union with Denmark. This union was based on the assumption of full autonomy and equality for each country. However,
Norway was too inferior financially, politically and culturally to be able to maintain this status in the long term, and from 1661 Norway was placed directly under the rule of the Danish monarch.
This absolute monarchy lasted until 1814, when Norway adopted its own constitution.
This event was brought about by the fact that the Danish-Norwegian king was forced to cede Norway to the king of Sweden with full rights of property and sovereignty as a result of the Napoleonic Wars and the Treaty of Kiel in 1814. The Treaty of Kiel aroused bitterness in Norway, whose population considered that the country was not a province but a separate kingdom, and that the king could therefore not cede it to another
monarch without the consent of the people. The population therefore considered itself to be released from its vow of allegiance to the Danish-Norwegian king. In the light of this, a national assembly was elected which gave the country a new constitution.
However, Norway did not have forces to oppose a union with Sweden. The country was united with Sweden in the same year, but as an independent kingdom with its own constitution.
The union with Sweden lasted until 1905. Except for the period of occupation during World War II (1940-45), Norway has remained an independent state since the
dissolution of the union with Sweden.
1.6.2 The Kven and the Skogfinn
The settlement and history of the Skogfinn and the Kven in Norway are both part of an extensive process of colonization by Finnish peasants, almost in the form of a mass exodus from the old agricultural communities of Finland and northern Sweden. This wave of emigration continued for several hundred years, from the 16th century up until the first half of the 19th century. This was followed, later in the 1800s, by modern labour migration on a larger scale. While the reasons for this migration are unquestionably complex, it was primarily due to the fact that the resources available on the basis of the existing technology could not keep up with population growth. In the 19th century, the expansive economy along the Arctic coastline was an important cause of Kven
migration to that region. Similarly, war and unrest contributed towards increasing the outflow of emigrants and determining the direction of migration and the destination.
1.6.2.1 The Kven
“Kven” is an old term. The first time it appears in Scandinavian sources is in Ottars beretning (Ottar’s Report), an oral report made by the Norwegian chieftain Ottar to King Alfred of England during a visit to the latter’s court, probably in the 890s. It was a Norse word, referring to people who inhabited the areas around the upper reaches of
Bottenviken and the large river valleys surrounding Bottenviken.
The first fiscal registers for North Norway date from 1520 and onwards include the names of a few Kven. However, no immigration on any substantial scale began until the first half of the 18th century.
As a result of the Nordic war and in search of available farmland, the Kven moved to Norway from Sweden, making their way north to river valleys and the inner reaches of fjords in Nord-Troms and Finnmark. Some Kven settled down in this area around this time. In the rural communities of inner Finnmark, the Kven were intergrated relatively quickly into the Sami population.
Kven immigration to North Norway increased from around 1830. At the same time, immigration was increasingly governed by the labour market, in which the mining industry and expansion of the North Norwegian fisheries played an important role. The majority of these immigrants made for East Finnmark. The proportion of Kven in the population of North Norway peaked in 1875, when they accounted for over 24% of the population of Finnmark County (approx. 5,800 persons) and just over 8% of the
population of Troms County (approx. 3,500 persons). Given the criteria on which the census was based, it is reasonable to describe these statistics as minimum figures.
A stringent policy was pursued in respect of the Kven minority, particularly during the period from 1850 to 1960. The Norwegianization policy, for instance, gave rise to special measures in schools and churches and intelligence activities targeting the Kven.
Another example is the Sale of Land Act of 1902, which laid down that only Norwegian- speakers could purchase land. The modernization of society also reinforced the
Norwegianization process. Nonetheless, the Kven language and culture were kept up relatively well until World War II in most of the “Kven districts” of North Norway, partly because of settlement patterns and Laestadianism (a revival movement founded by the Finnish-speaking Swedish minister Lars L. Læstadius). The pattern of settlement itself fostered “cultural entrenchment”, in that the Kven primarily settled in rural
communities and urban neighbourhoods where other Kven were already established.
Throughout the post-war period, this pattern was gradually weakened by modern migration and centralization trends.
1.6.2.2 The Skogfinn
The Skogfinn settlement in south-east Norway is a result of extensive emigration from south-east Finland northwards and westwards from the 16th century onwards
This expansion can partly be attributed to the agricultural culture itself, as well as to war and unrest. The slash-and-burn method of agriculture, which was the prevailing method of farming, required large forested areas and necessitated that fields be moved frequently.
The first Finns may have settled on the Norwegian side of the border around 1600.
During the 17th century a belt of Finnish settlements was established along the border.
This area was named Finnskogen (the Finn Forest). As time went by, Finnish settlements were established in more than 40 municipalities in the counties of
Hedmark, Akershus, Oppland, Østfold and Buskerud. In 1686, a separate census was conducted for Finns in south-east Norway, which tallied 1065 “pure” Finns and 160
“half-breeds”, i.e. the mother was Norwegian or Swedish.
Like the Kven, the Skogfinn were subjected to a stringent policy of Norwegianization. In the 1820s, they approached the authorities in an attempt to request measures in
connection with religious instruction and church services, education and economic matters. All their requests were rejected, primarily for political reasons. The
government feared that the consequences might be Finnish separatism in the border regions.
Nonetheless, Finnish was spoken in everyday language in Finnskogen at the end of the 19th century. Later on, the Finnish language rapidly lost ground in Finnskogen, and when World War II broke out the language had practically fallen into disuse.
The Skogfinn can boast a rich tradition of handicrafts, folk music and folklore.
Characteristic features of their architecture are simple log dwellings with a central, open fireplace and a smokehole in the roof (røykstua), saunas and sheds for drying and threshing rye (ria).
1.6.3 The Romani people/Travellers and the Roma/Gypsies
The first documentary evidence of the Roma/Gypsies in the Nordic region dates from 1505, when a group of them reported to King Hans of Denmark-Norway. In 1512, another itinerant group appeared in Stockholm, where they were recorded as gypsies.
They were probably representatives of the same ethnic group.
In source material from the 17th and 18th century, however, it is very difficult to distinguish between the Romani people/Travellers and the Roma/Gypsies. The most important material in which they are mentioned consists of laws and decrees aimed at monitoring and regulating itinerant groups.
A number of historians support a theory to the effect that the Romani people and the Roma have a common origin. This is usually founded on linguistic studies. Other researchers take the opposite view, i.e. the two groups have different origins, and that the similarities between the Romani and Roma languages may be ascribed to the cultural interaction between the two peoples.
By and large the same policy was applied in respect of both groups. The authorities gradually made it difficult for the Roma and the Romani people to make a lawful living for themselves by means of traditional occupations.
1.6.3.1 The Romani people
In the 1840s, the authorities were of the opinion that the large “bands of tramps” in Norway were becoming a general nuisance. The Government then decided that
“vagabonds”, which included “tramps”, were to be counted in the census taken in 1845.
This resulted in a list of 223 “bands of tramps”, totalling 1145 persons. Later, several different lists were made, in which the numbers vary significantly.
The Romani people were regarded by the majority population and society at large as a group with a different, aberrant way of life, and as representatives of an alien culture.
Official policy therefore long consisted of heavy-handed attempts to bring the group under control by criminalizing their itinerant lifestyle and subjecting them to criminal prosecution.
In the latter half of the 19th century, the authorities attempted with varying degrees of force to counteract “vagabondage”, for instance by appropriating funds for measures designed to give the children of Travellers a Christian upbringing and schooling.
Important landmarks were the Guardianship Act of 1896, establishment of the Association for the Prevention of Vagabondage the following year, and the Vagrancy Act of 1900. The association developed into a manager of social welfare for the Romani people, funded by grants from the state. In 1935, the association changed its name to the Norwegian Mission for the Homeless, hereinafter called the Mission. The Ministry of Social Affairs endorsed its activity, and the Storting praised the organization.
The Mission regarded it as its responsibility to take charge of as many of the travellers’
children as possible, so as to bring them up to live as residents with a fixed address.
The organization ran several institutions for children and administered numerous placements in foster homes. According to the Mission’s own estimates, these measures encompassed approximately 1500 children. Many children were taken away from their families and relatives and grew up with no knowledge of their own background. Some of them did not learn of their own affiliation with the Romani people until they reached adulthood.
The measures targeting children were implemented by putting pressure on their parents or by coercion. The goal was full assimilation into Norwegian society. The research on the Romani people carried out under the auspices of the Research Council of Norway shows that the threshold for punishment was low in the institutions run by the Mission, and several of the children fell ill and were sent to psychiatric institutions.
They may also have been sent away to psychiatric institutions because they resisted the strict discipline of the Mission’s institutions. In many cases, Romani persons who were placed in a children’s home, or in some cases in a residential school, tell of the
systematic debasement of and contempt shown for their culture. The Child Welfare Act of 1953, which replaced the Guardianship Act, led to a slight reduction in the use of placements in institutions and greater emphasis on preventive measures at home.
The Mission also pursued an active policy aimed at inducing the group to settle down at a fixed address, and Svanviken Labour Colony in Nordmøre County was an instrument of this policy.
In 1934, the Storting adopted the Sterilization Act. Pursuant to this Act, the National Medical Officer could decide applications for voluntary sterilization signed by the person concerned, and in some cases also signed by the guardian. In the case of the insane and persons who were severely mentally retarded, the signature of their guardian or curator was sufficient, but in such cases the chief medical officer had to consult a board of experts chaired by him. No application was required for sterilization in order to protect the life and health of a woman.
The goal was to rid the population of “inferior genetic material”, thereby reducing the extent of such problems as mental retardation, crime and alcoholism. The Romani people were regarded as a group with a high crime rate and a generally “scandalous way of life”.
After World War II, arguments in favour of sterilization shifted away from eugenics and moralization about the way of life of specific persons to focus more on social and socio- economic aspects. The authorities hoped to be able to correct behaviour through activities such as those run by the Mission.
In autumn 2000, the Research Council of Norway concluded a special research programme on official measures implemented in respect of the Romani people. The sterilization of Romani women is one of the topics that was investigated, and the research programme shows that this group was overrepresented.
Both the eugenics in the inter-war period and the coercive measures that were practised to some extent until the late 1970s, reflect an intolerant attitude towards a different way of life. The goal was a well-regulated society in which every person had a fixed address, went through the same system of schooling, received the same benefits and contributed equally to economic development.
After the war, the Romani people were largely forced to abandon their traditional
itinerant occupations due to regulations imposed by the authorities. One example is the Animal Protection Act of 1951, which prohibited the Romani people from keeping
horses. This policy has made it difficult for the Romani people to continue their itinerant life style and the traditional occupations associated with this way of life. This in itself has undermined the basis for preserving, continuing and renewing the fund of
experience, knowledge and practical skills on which the exercise of these occupations was dependent.
On the whole, it must be said that the policy pursued in respect of the Romani people, particularly in the 1900s, has been one of active assimilation. The policy has actively contributed towards undermining the traditional way of life and culture that were
characteristic of this ethnic group, with the result that even today many people are reluctant to pursue their way of life and culture openly.
The early 1970s saw the start of a process that led to a change of policy. The government social measures targeted towards the Romani people/Travellers were phased out in the course of the 1980s.
In the past decade, the public at large has taken a strong and growing interest in the history and fate of the Romani people/Travellers in Norway. This is probably due to the general interest in minority issues and, more particularly, to the strong media focus on eugenics and the various measures that have been carried out over the years in
Norway. Special attention has been focused on the Sterilization Act of 1934 and the consequences this Act had for the Romani people/Travellers.
In February 1998, the Minister of Local Government and Regional Development at the time, Mrs Ragnhild Queseth Haarstad, officially apologized for the abuses committed by the Norwegian authorities against the Romani people through history.
1.6.3.2 The Roma
Today, the Norwegian Roma/Gypsies largely live in the Oslo area and travel during the summer. They are members of the Vlach people, who are distinguished on the basis of their language, which is distinctively Romanian (Wallakian). This may be an indication that the group spent a long period of time in the Balkans in the course of their westward migration.
The first Vlach Roma probably arrived in Norway in the 1860s. Around 1930, the entire group left Norway, probably for fear they would be subjected to the same measures that the Mission had applied to the Romani people.
In 1934, a group of 68 Roma was stopped at the border between Denmark and Germany by the Danish police. The Norwegian authorities informed the police that the group was not wanted in Norway, and the Roma were therefore sent back to Germany. Several of them died in concentration camps. Starting in the late 1950s, some Roma came to Norway and were eventually granted Norwegian citizenship.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the central government authorities and Oslo Municipality carried out a number of special measures to deal with problems arising within the Norwegian Roma/Gypsies group. For instance, a special day care facility and
recreational centre for Roma children and young people was established. Furthermore, the so-called Office for Gypsies in Oslo was established in 1973. The most important functions of the Office for Gypsies were to help the Roma to establish residence and provide practical assistance in that connection, in addition to dealing with applications for social assistance and disbursing such assistance. All the special measures were
phased out towards the beginning of the 1990s, partly because they were expensive and partly because they were deemed to be unsuccessful.
In the past few years, a number of Roma/Gypsies have come to Norway as asylum- seekers, primarily from the former Yugoslavia. There is no overview of how large this group may be, because all asylum-seekers are registered solely by nationality.
1.6.4 The Jews
Most of the material available on Jews in the Nordic region in earlier times consists of laws and decrees, the earliest dating from as far back as 1436 and prohibiting
celebration of the Sabbath.
There was never any large-scale immigration of Jews to Norway. This is ascribable both to official policy and to the fact that Norway did not seem to be particularly attractive to Jewish settlers. King Christian IV of Denmark-Norway was eager to offer Jews access to the realm for economic reasons, but encountered resistance from the clergy and
contented himself with allowing a few Jews to settle in Schleswig-Holstein as from 1620.
Developments in the course of the 17th and 18th centuries reflected an ambivalent attitude towards the Jews. On the one hand, legislation was restrictive, while on the other the authorities were very ready to grant safe-conducts entitling some Jews, particularly in times of war, to engage in trade for which they could provide the necessary capital.
Christian V’s Norwegian Act of 1687 contained a provision governing Jews’ access to Norway: “No Jew may enter or stay in this Realm without the special Safe-conduct of the King under Pain of a Fine of one thousand Rixdalers for each Person who sets foot herein without the prescribed Safe-conduct.”
The general prohibition against Jews entering Norway was interpreted more stringently immediately after Norway’s separation from Denmark in 1814 than when the two
countries were united under the absolute Danish monarchy. The Constitution of 1814 gave the Norwegian population the right to free exercise of religion, but Jews were still excluded from entry to the realm. In the 1830s, the “Jewish issue” was addressed publicly in a variety of ways. It was not until 1851 that the Storting majority required in order to amend the Constitution was achieved, thereby enabling Jews to enter and settle in the realm.
At the time of the 1865 census, there were only 25 professed Jews in Norway, and in 1875 they numbered 34. Most of them had immigrated from Germany, Austria- Hungary, Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark. From around 1880, nationalism and anti- Semitism led to the persecution of Jews in Eastern Europe. This prompted a large number of them to emigrate, mainly to the USA, but also to Norway. The influx of Jews
from the Baltic States was particularly great. By 1920, the number of Jews in Norway had grown to about 1,500.
Ever since the 19th century, most of the Jews in Norway have taken up residence in Trondheim and Oslo. Jews have primarily engaged in trade, handicrafts, industry and, gradually, the “liberal professions” (as physicians, dentists, lawyers, etc.).
World War II was cataclysmic for the Norwegian Jews, as it was for Jews in many European countries. In Norway only a small minority of those who were sent to Germany survived. In all, 767 Jews were deported, while around 1,300 managed to escape to Sweden. About 750 Jews lost their lives, and 230 families were completely exterminated.
The 1946 census recorded only 559 Jews in Norway, about one fourth of the number at the time the war broke out. It took many years to rebuild the Jewish community in Norway after the war, but its numbers are now nearing the pre-war level.
1.6.5 The Sami people
The Sami people are the ethnic group with the oldest historical ties to the counties of Finnmark and Troms. Sami settlement is considered to antedate the Christian era, and the Sami people are regarded as indigenous to Norway. Since this report does not cover measures targeting the Sami population, the history of the Sami people will not be described in further detail here. Reference is made to the appended report on the implementation of Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries.
1.7 DEMOGRAPHY
As of 1 January 2000, the population of Norway totalled 4,480,000 inhabitants. At the beginning of 1999, the immigrant population totalled 260,700 persons, which is equivalent to 5.9 per cent of the total number of inhabitants. A total of 20 per cent of these immigrants originate from Nordic countries, while over half come from Third World countries.
There are no accurate estimates of the number of inhabitants belonging to national minorities in Norway, since no statistics of ethnic origin are kept. A possible estimate is that there are currently around 10,000-15,000 Kven, 1,500-2,000 Jews, a few hundred Skogfinn, 2,000-3,000 Romani people/Travellers and 300-400 Roma/Gypsies. These figures were provided partly by the ethnic groups themselves and partly by
researchers. It must be emphasized that the figures are imprecise and reflect the number of people who might conceivably regard themselves as belonging to the minority group, not the number of those who speak the language fluently or whose relatives in
earlier generations were members of the groups in question. The number of language users is lower. This uncertainty is compounded by the fact that many people do not wish to admit that they belong to a minority group for fear that they will be
discriminated against by society at large, or the fact that they are unaware of their origin. The Romani people/Travellers in particular claim that the aforementioned estimate is much too low due to circumstances of this nature.
1.8 GENERAL INFORMATION FOR 1999
In 1999, Norwegian gross national product at market price totalled NOK 1,192,826 million (an increase of 0.9% compared with 1998). Gross national income at market price amounted to NOK 1,180,541 million, while net national income amounted to NOK 988,658 million. Per capita gross national product and per capita gross national income were NOK 267,328 and NOK 264,575, respectively.
PART II
2. ARTICLE 1
The protection of national minorities and of the rights and freedoms of persons belonging to those minorities forms an integral part of the international
protection of human rights, and as such falls within the scope of international co-operation.
2.1 Relevant conventions ratified by Norway
Norway is a party to the following conventions that are relevant to the protection of national minorities:
• European Convention on Human Rights
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
• International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
• Convention on the Rights of the Child
• European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
• European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
2.2 Participation in international and regional forums
Norway has participated in the following international and regional forums where the situation of national minorities has been a key topic:
• UN General Assembly
• UN Human Rights Commission
• the OSCE Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting on Roma and Sinti Issues
• the Council of Europe’s Specialist Group on Roma/Gypsies (MG-S-ROM)
• the Council of Europe’s Committee of Experts on Issues relating to the Protection of National Minorities (DH-MIN)
• Joint Programme on National Minorities in Europe
• Council of the Baltic Sea States, Round Table “The Rights of Minorities in the Baltic Sea Region”
• Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe, International Conference on Interethnic Relations and Minorities in Southeastern Europe
2.3 Access to the judicial system and other appeal systems 2.3.1 Access to courts of law
The criteria for instituting civil legal proceedings apply generally. There are no special rules for ethnic minorities.
The main conditions that must be satisfied in order to bring a case before a court of law are laid down in section 54 of Act of 13 August 1915 No. 6 relating to Legal Procedure in Civil Disputes (the Civil Procedure Act), which declares that any person with a legal interest in having a case decided by a court of law may institute legal proceedings. The condition as regards legal interest will be satisfied if a judicial decision has a significant effect on the plaintiff’s legal status, e.g. if a person claims that an official administrative decision is invalid due to unfair differential treatment, or in cases relating to labour law where discrimination is alleged.
Non-profit organizations also have a certain right to institute legal proceedings. For an organization to be entitled to bring an action, the case must concern issues relating to the purpose of the organization.
2.3.2 Appeals against official administrative decisions
An individual decision may be appealed to the body immediately superior to the body that made the decision. The appeal body may test all aspects of the case. If the appeal body finds that the decision was made on the basis of unfair differential treatment, the decision will normally be quashed or reversed by the appeal body.
2.3.3 Complaints to the Storting’s Ombudsman for Public Administration
Any person who considers that he or she has been unjustly treated by the public administration may submit a complaint to the Storting’s Ombudsman for Public Administration (the Parliamentary Ombudsman). The Parliamentary Ombudsman is appointed by the Storting and is not subject to instructions by the public administration.
Nor may the Storting issue instructions to the Parliamentary Ombudsman in individual cases. The main function of the Parliamentary Ombudsman is to ensure that no
injustice is committed against an individual citizen by the public administration. He does not have authority to reverse administrative decisions, but may criticize the administrative agency or the public official in question if he finds reason to do so. He may also notify the prosecuting authorities that a case should, in his opinion, be investigated. The recommendations of the Parliamentary Ombudsman are normally followed in practice. No costs are incurred by submitting a complaint to the
Ombudsman.
2.3.4 Legal aid
Legal aid is widely available in Norway, and is provided through a number of different arrangements. Key legislation relating to legal aid outside the field of criminal law is to be found in the Legal Aid Act and in certain provisions of the Public Administration Act.
The Legal Aid Act distinguishes between cases in which legal aid is granted subject to a means test and cases for which no means test is required.
In cases where no means test is carried out, citizens are entitled to free legal aid regardless of their income and assets. This applies in cases of a particularly radical nature, such as when the public authorities wish to take coercive action against a citizen pursuant to the Act relating to Social Services or the Act relating to Child Welfare
Services. In 1998, cases that did not involve a means test accounted for a little over half of the total number of cases in which free legal aid was provided.
In other cases involving free legal aid, a means test must be carried out in accordance with the financial conditions laid down in the Legal Aid Act and appurtenant
regulations. The maximum income level for eligibility for free legal aid as of November 2000 varied from NOK 150,000 to NOK 170,000 in gross income, depending on the applicant’s family support responsibilities. Moreover, the applicant’s net assets must not exceed NOK 100,000.
When “special reasons” obtain, free legal aid may be granted pursuant to the Legal Aid Act even if the income limits are exceeded. Legal problems related to cultural matters of importance for national minorities and indigenous populations have been considered to be “special reasons”.
Persons who consider themselves to have been the victims of ethnic discrimination may also obtain legal aid from the Centre for Combating Ethnic Discrimination. The centre is an independent governmental agency that combats discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, colour or national or ethnic origin. It provides free legal aid to individuals and seeks to document the type and extent of discrimination in Norway.
While the centre does not bring cases to court, it will be able to cover the costs of legal counsel in cases involving important principles. Reference is made to section 4.2 of this report for a more detailed description of the centre’s activity.
2.3.5 The Storting’s ex gratia payment scheme
An application may be made to the Storting for an ex gratia payment by any person who believes that he or she, through no fault of his or her own, has suffered a loss, either pecuniary or non-pecuniary, which cannot be covered by other schemes such as national insurance, social benefits, insurance or compensation on a legal basis.
Applications for ex gratia payments are decided by the Storting’s Ex Gratia Payment Committee.
The ex gratia payment scheme is intended as a helping hand for the benefit of those who through no fault of their own have been particularly unfortunate compared with others in the same situation. Thus ex gratia payments are not an entitlement. There are no formal rules for granting ex gratia payments from the state treasury, and the
decisions of the Ex Gratia Payment Committee may not be appealed.
The question of whether or not to grant an ex gratia payment is decided by an
assessment of what is reasonable in each individual case. In this assessment, decisive importance is attached to whether the public authorities are to blame for the loss that has occurred. The most common cases in which ex gratia payments have been granted are cases in which persons have either received inadequate schooling, received
erroneous treatment from the public health services or been misassessed in cases where children have been taken into care by the child welfare authorities. In many cases, persons considered to belong to the Romani people/Travellers have received ex gratia payments for such injustices. Today, it is regular practice to award persons with a Romani/Traveller background who have received inadequate schooling an ex gratia payment of NOK 60,000.
3. ARTICLE 3
1. Every person belonging to a national minority shall have the right freely to choose to be treated or not to be treated as such and no disadvantage shall result from this choice or from the exercise of the rights which are connected to that choice.
2. Persons belonging to national minorities may exercise the rights and enjoy the freedoms flowing from the principles enshrined in the present Framework Convention individually as well as in community with others.
3.1 Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2
Policy in respect of national minorities in Norway is based on the principle of self- identification, i.e. the persons concerned must themselves decide whether or not they wish to be treated as a member of a national minority. The Government has stated this explicitly in its Report to the Storting on national minorities. Moreover, official policy is not framed in such a way as to give rise to any disadvantage as a result of this choice or of the exercise of the rights connected with it.
In Norway, the term “national minorities” is understood to mean minorities with a long- term connection with the country. Minority groups must be in the minority and must hold a non-dominant position in society. Furthermore, they must have distinctive ethnic, linguistic, cultural and/or religious characteristics which make them
substantially different from the rest of the population of Norway. The persons
concerned must also have a common will to maintain and develop their own identity.
The term “long-term connection” has not been defined, but the Norwegian authorities have taken into consideration a criterion suggested internationally to the effect that groups must be able to claim a minimum of 100 years of connection with the state in question. Thus more recent immigrant groups are not deemed to be national minorities in Norway. However, the situation is more nuanced in the case of immigrants to
Norway with backgrounds from the same groups that have been granted the status of national minorities in Norway. These immigrants will be eligible for measures designed for the national minority (such as language training) even if the individual immigrant does not have a long-term connection with Norway.
In order for a minority group to be deemed to be a national minority in Norway, it is normally also required that all or most of the members of the minority group are Norwegian nationals. However, the requirement as regards nationality does not preclude a national minority from comprising individuals who have been granted a residence permit in Norway, but who are not yet Norwegian nationals.
The term “national minority” is not used in Norwegian legislation. Thus there is no legal definition of the term nor any list of the groups that are considered to be national minorities in Norwegian legislation.
When Norway ratified the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the
Protection of National Minorities, the Government chose not to make a declaration as to which groups the convention was considered to apply. One reason for this was that such a declaration could be regarded as a limitation of the scope of the convention, another reason was that it might give rise to unintended reactions among persons belonging to the groups in question. During the preparations for ratification, the Norwegian Sami Parliament clearly stated that the Sami did not wish to be included in such a declaration, since they prefer to maintain their status as an indigenous people and protect the strengthened legal status that has been achieved for indigenous peoples through ILO Convention No. 169. Nor did certain organizations among the Romani people/Travellers wish to be “declared” a national minority.
In Proposition No. 80 (1997-1998) to the Storting relating to Consent to Ratification of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention of 1 February 1995 for the Protection of National Minorities, the authorities concluded that the Sami, Kven, Skogfinn,
Romani/Travellers, Roma/Gypsies and Jews satisfy the criteria for “national
minorities”, and that these groups therefore fall within the scope of the convention. As mentioned above, the Sami Parliament does not wish the Sami to be encompassed by central government policy in respect of national minorities, a factor that is reflected in the Report to the Storting on national minority policy. Reference is made to points 1.6 and 1.7 for information regarding the number and geographical affiliation of these groups.
3.2 Registration of demographic data
The Ministry of Finance, represented by the Directorate of Taxes, is the administrative agency responsible for the national population register. Demographic data are collected by local population registers, which forward them to the national population register.
The national population register consists of all the personal identity numbers that have been assigned to individuals. The register may also contain the following data linked to each personal identity number: name, place of birth, marital status, address, family number, personal code, the personal identity number of an individual’s
father/mother/spouse/children, parental responsibility, employer, occupation, membership of the Church of Norway, nationality, work permit, residence permit, registration status (liable to tax, resident, emigrant, disappeared, etc.), sentenced to loss of the right to vote, declaration of legal incapacity and guardian.
In connection with the national population register, a separate Sami electoral register is also kept. Eligibility to vote in Sami parliamentary elections is conditional on being entered in this register. Provisions governing the Sami electoral register are laid down in section 2-6 of Act of 12 June 1987 No. 56 relating to the Sameting (the Sami
Parliament) and other Sami legal matters (the Sami Act).
Voters are entered in the Sami electoral register on a voluntary basis. Apart from this register, the Norwegian authorities at present have no registers based on ethnic origin.
However, there are examples that the central government authorities formerly kept registers containing this type of sensitive information (“Register of Mentally Retarded Persons” and the National Bureau of Crime Investigation’s “Register of the Romani people/Travellers”). These registers are now stored in the National Archives of
Norway, which is the administrative agency responsible for the archives of the central government administration. The registers are subject to strict rules governing public access to information. The registers will neither be erased nor anonymized, as doing so might mean erasing documentation of past abuses. This is in keeping with the wishes of the Romani People’s Association of Norway (Romanifolkets Landsforening), which is one of the voluntary organizations for the Romani people/Travellers.
4. ARTICLE 4
1. The Parties undertake to guarantee to persons belonging to national minorities the right of equality before the law and of equal protection of the law. In this respect, any discrimination based on belonging to a national minority shall be prohibited.
2. The Parties undertake to adopt, where necessary, adequate measures in order to promote, in all areas of economic, social, political and cultural life, full and effective equality between persons belonging to a national minority and those belonging to the majority. In this respect, they shall take due account of the specific conditions of the persons belonging to national minorities.
3. The measures adopted in accordance with paragraph 2 shall not be considered to be an act of discrimination.
4.1 Article 4, paragraph 1
Government policy on national minorities is based on the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. These are fundamental principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in international human rights conventions.
It is an overriding goal for the Government of Norway to ensure that all persons residing in Norway, irrespective of their background, have genuinely equal
opportunities, equal rights and equal obligations to participate in all areas of society and to make use of their own resources.
Nevertheless, national minorities still experience discrimination, although the nature of the discrimination may vary from one group to another. Reports from national minority organizations and from the Centre for Combating Ethnic Discrimination (see point 4.2) show that discrimination is perceived as a problem by persons belonging to national minorities. This applies both to their contacts with the public sector and in the private sector. National minorities are subjected to bullying and harassment at school and at other times in their daily life. In some cases, it is a question of undisguised
discrimination, where strong, negative attitudes are expressed.
The Centre for Combating Ethnic Discrimination has provided assistance in cases where families belonging to the Roma/Gypsies and Romani/Travellers communities have been discriminated against in that they have been turned away from campsites for no objective reason. The centre also reports examples in which an application for a loan was probably rejected because of the ethnic origin of the applicant. Other complaints received by the centre concern the social service, the health service and the police.
At present, there are certain provisions which prohibit ethnic discrimination in specific fields. However, these provisions are seldom tried by a court of law. Those groups
whom the provisions are intended to protect find that they have little genuine protection against discrimination.
The principle of non-discrimination, as it is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and the two International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is part of Norwegian law, since these conventions were incorporated into Norwegian legislation by the Human Rights Act of 21 May 1999.
Apart from this, Norwegian legislation contains no general provisions prohibiting discrimination on grounds of race or ethnic origin, neither in the Constitution nor in other statutes.
The general principles of administrative law as regards equal treatment and the prohibition against unfair differential treatment apply to all public sector activity, whether at central government or local government level. In many cases, the
requirement as regards objective grounds entails that no account must be taken of a party’s personal characteristics such as gender, race, religion, political opinions, membership in an organization or the like.
Section 55 a of Act of 4 February 1977 No. 4 relating to Worker Protection and Working Environment, etc. (the Working Environment Act) prohibits the differential treatment of applicants for employment on grounds of “race, colour, national or ethnic origin or homosexual orientation or homosexual cohabitation”. In this context, the term
“differential treatment” means any action which, for no objective reason, directly or indirectly gives persons unequal status on these grounds. Section 60 of the same Act provides that objective grounds are required in order to dismiss an employee.
Objective grounds are also stipulated as a requirement in several other statutes based on the principle of equality. Examples include Act of 26 March 1999 No. 17 relating to House Rents (the House Rent Act), Act of 4 February 1960 No. 2 relating to Housing Cooperatives, Act of 4 February 1960 No. 1 relating to House Building Cooperatives and Act of 23 May 1997 No. 31 relating to Owner-Tenant Units.
Act of 22 May 1902 No. 10 (the General Civil Penal Code) contains provisions intended to protect citizens against racist utterances, racially motivated actions and
discrimination. These provisions will also affect persons belonging to a national minority. Contraventions of the Penal Code may result in imprisonment and/or fines.
Section 135 a of the Penal Code prohibits public utterances or communications which threaten, insult or subject any person to hatred, persecution or contempt because of their religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin. Furthermore, racial motivation may be considered an aggravating circumstance, for instance in connection with an offence against the person (cf. section 232 of the Penal Code). Section 292 of the Penal Code prescribes that importance shall be attached to whether an act of vandalism is racially motivated when deciding whether the vandalism is serious.
Section 330 of the Penal Code contains a general prohibition against establishing or participating in associations that either are prohibited by law or whose purpose is the commission or encouragement of offences. This provision may also be applied to
racially motivated crimes. Section 104 a of the Penal Code makes it a punishable offence to form or take part in a private organization of a military character, or to support such an organization.
Section 349 a, first paragraph, of the Penal Code prohibits any person in an occupational or similar activity from refusing any person goods or services on the same conditions as apply to others because of his or her religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin.
The provision applies only to discrimination in “commercial activity”, i.e. it does not apply to private matters. Furthermore, it applies only to refusal of “goods or services”, which means that housing and employment matters will not normally be governed by this provision. However, the mediation of housing and employment will be regarded as
“services” and will be subject to the provision if the mediator himself or herself discriminates against a person. However, the provision will hardly apply to simple mediation of a discriminating product if the mediation service itself is effected in a non- discriminating manner. Reference is made in this connection to the Supreme Court judgment of 27 August 1999, in which the Supreme Court concluded that there was no legal authority for convicting a mediator of rental housing units, even though some of the lessors applied clearly discriminating criteria to their lessees.
Pursuant to section 349 a, second paragraph, of the Penal Code, any person who refuses a person admission to a public performance, exhibition or other public gathering on the same conditions as apply to others because of his or her religion, race, colour or
national or ethnic origin is liable to a penalty. A gathering is public when it is accessible to the general public with or without payment.
4.2 Article 4, paragraph 2
The Government emphasizes that the state has a special responsibility for ensuring that measures are implemented to ensure equal treatment and prevent discrimination.
Government policy in this area is based on the Plan of Action to Combat Racism and Discrimination (1998-2001). The Plan of Action prescribes various measures targeting the judicial system, the labour market, the housing market, schools, key sectors of public administration, basic and further education for certain occupational groups and local community activities.
The Centre for Combating Ethnic Discrimination was officially inaugurated in February 1999 and will operate on a trial basis until the end of 2002. The purpose of the centre is to ensure protection against ethnic discrimination. The main function of the centre is to provide legal aid in cases involving discrimination because of religion, race, colour or
national or ethnic origin, and to document and monitor the situation as regards the nature and extent of this type of discrimination.
Since its establishment, the centre has published two reports on ethnic discrimination in Norway (November 1999 and October 2000). The reports provide information on the types of discrimination that exist and make it clear that there is a great need for legal assistance in such cases.
The activities of the Centre for Combating Ethnic Discrimination encompass all of Norway. To ensure that the target groups are well informed about its work, the centre has attached importance to establishing a dialogue with representatives of minority organizations. To this end, the centre has had meetings with organizations for Jews, Kven, Roma/Gypsies, the Romani people/Travellers and Skogfinn. Work has begun on an ongoing evaluation of the centre’s activity during the trial period.
In March 2000, the King in Council appointed a legislative committee to prepare an act prohibiting ethnic discrimination. The committee is to submit its report to the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development. The task of the committee is to examine how legal protection against ethnic discrimination can be strengthened and to present draft legislation prohibiting ethnic discrimination. The committee is to consider appropriate sanctions, various ways of ensuring an effective system of enforcement and the role of the Centre for Combating Ethnic Discrimination in enforcing the Act.
Furthermore, the committee is to consider how the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) can be implemented into Norwegian law.
The Government attaches great importance to international efforts to combat racism and discrimination, and will participate actively, in collaboration with non-governmental organizations, in the process prior to the World Conference against Racism in 2001 (see point 6.1.4, last paragraph).
The other measures implemented by the authorities to promote full and effective equality between persons belonging to a national minority and those belonging to the majority population, in all areas of economic, social, political and cultural life, are described under the following Articles in this report.
4.3 Article 4, paragraph 3
Special positive measures designed to ensure that every person, irrespective of background, has equal opportunities to participate in society are not considered to be acts of discrimination by the Norwegian authorities. Nor are such measures subject to the statutory provisions or principles mentioned above under point 4.1.
5. ARTICLE 5
1. The Parties undertake to promote the conditions necessary for persons belonging to national minorities to maintain and develop their culture, and to preserve the essential elements of their identity, namely their religion, language, traditions and cultural heritage.
2. Without prejudice to measures taken in pursuance of their general integration policy, the Parties shall refrain from policies or practices aimed at assimilation of persons belonging to national minorities against their will and shall protect these persons from any action aimed at such assimilation.
5.1 Article 5, paragraph 1
In its report to the Storting on national minority policy, the Government states that it will seek to foster a society that promotes the conditions necessary to enable persons belonging to minorities to express, maintain and develop their identity, both within their own group and in community with the rest of society. The Government further states that the cultural heritage of national minorities is part of Norwegian cultural heritage, and that Norway therefore has a special responsibility for preserving the cultural heritage and cultural traditions of minorities.
The Government bases its policy on the fact that some of the needs of national
minorities can only be met by adopting special measures for these groups, such as the establishment of special cultural institutions for the individual ethnic groups.
Nevertheless, the Government aims to ensure that the needs of minorities are met as far as possible within the framework of general arrangements, for instance by adapting general arrangements to enable national minorities to also benefit from them. The Government considers it crucial that the minority concerned itself define the criteria to be applied when adapting the arrangements and that the measure be part of the group’s own efforts to maintain and strengthen their culture.
The Government’s efforts to promote the necessary conditions are described under the following Articles in this report.
5.1.1 Religion
Norway has had a state church for many centuries. This principle is enshrined in Article 2 of the Constitution, which states that “the Evangelical-Lutheran religion shall remain the official religion of the State.” The same article of the Constitution also declares that all inhabitants of Norway shall have the right to free exercise of their religion. For a further description of religious freedom, reference is made to point 8 of this report.
There is no inventory or list of recognized religions in Norwegian legislation.
5.1.2 Language
Norway has two official languages: Sami and Norwegian. That Sami is an official language is laid down in section 1-5 of Act of 12 June 1987 No. 56 relating to the Sameting (the Sami Parliament) and other Sami legal matters. The right of national minorities to use their own language is discussed under point 10 of this report.
5.1.3 Traditions and cultural heritage
Cultural policy in respect of national minorities is a complex task where solutions vary according to the needs of the individual minority. The measures implemented by the authorities in this area are partly of a permanent nature designed to protect cultural heritage and partly short-term, project-oriented cultural measures.
5.1.3.1 Cultural heritage protection
One of the functions of archives, libraries and museums in Norway is to reflect
historical and cultural diversity. It is of decisive importance that these cultural heritage institutions possess or can acquire materials and services that are relevant for individual users, including national minorities. However, there is no doubt that most institutions and the material they administer represent different aspects of the Norwegian majority society. Additional efforts are required to ensure that the cultural pluralism of modern Norwegian society is given greater prominence in the cultural sphere. In Report No. 22 (1999-2000) to the Storting on Sources of Knowledge and Experience - Archives,
Libraries and Museums in an ICT era and Structural Parameters in the Cultural Sphere, stronger emphasis on this dimension of Norwegian cultural heritage is a stated goal.
5.1.3.2 Investment grants for cultural buildings, etc.
The museum for Kven culture in Norway (Vadsø Museum - Ruija Kven Museum) received NOK 516,000 in government funding in 2000. Furthermore, a government operating grant was provided from the budget of the Ministry of Cultural Affairs for the Kvæntun Centre, which is to be a centre for Kven language and culture. In 2000, this grant amounted to NOK 758,000. The centre’s activities include documentation, preservation and development of the Kven language, with particular emphasis on linguistics. The institution will also arrange cultural events and promote cooperation in the cultural sphere. In its report to the Storting on national minority policy, the
Government stated that it will seek to contribute towards ensuring that the Kvæntun project is realized. Nordreisa Municipality also has plans to establish a Kven cultural centre for the documentation and presentation of Kven culture and traditions,
particularly in Troms County.
An area that has hitherto been completely neglected is the Romani people/Travellers and their cultural history in Norway. The Glomdal Museum in Elverum has drawn up plans to establish a permanent cultural history centre for the documentation and
presentation of Traveller culture as a new department of the museum. The efforts of the Ministry of Cultural Affairs to preserve Traveller culture are concentrated primarily on the project at the Glomdal Museum, for which the central government authorities have granted project funding for several years. The planned exhibition will focus on the history and culture of the Romani people, while a small section of the exhibition will revolve around the attitudes towards and measures implemented in respect of this minority by society at large. The museum wishes to illustrate clearly what a minority is, and promote greater awareness of abuses and oppression as well as increased tolerance and understanding of what is different. In its report to the Storting on national minority policy, the Government proposes that funds be appropriated for investments in and the operation of the Glomdal Museum with a view to commencing construction in 2002. In this way, the Government wishes to redress the wrongs that have been committed against the Romani people/Travellers in the past.
A distinctive feature of the Kvæntun project and the new section of the Glomdal Museum is the fact that the national minorities themselves have influenced and are actively engaged in the planning process, and that the projects are part of the group’s own efforts to preserve and strengthen their culture.
Besides the Kvæntun centre and the Glomdal Museum, the Gruetun Museum in Finnskogen was granted NOK 265,000 from the budget of the Ministry of Cultural Affairs in 2000. Levanger Museum also received NOK 120,000 in government funding for the purchase of a listed house which belonged to a Romani family.
The Jewish minority was granted NOK 150 million in 1999 to secure the culture and future of the Jewish community in Norway, as a historical and moral settlement for the economic liquidation of the Jewish minority during World War II (the so-called Jewish property settlement).This settlement is more than a purely financial settlement based on assets confiscated from Jews during the war. The sum was paid to the Jewish communities in Norway, who will decide how the funds are to be used. As part of the collective portion of the Jewish settlement, NOK 40 million was granted for the establishment of a centre for studies of the Holocaust and religious minorities in Norway. The purpose of such a centre is to build up expertise in Norway on the Holocaust in general and on the Norwegian chapter of Holocaust history in particular, as well as to lay the foundation for broad knowledge of the history, beliefs, traditions, culture and status of belief minorities in Norwegian society. Preparations are now being made to establish the centre.
Funds are appropriated from the budget of the Ministry of Cultural Affairs for grant schemes for local, regional and national cultural buildings. Within the framework of these schemes, applications may be submitted for funding for the construction of new buildings and conversion of existing buildings for cultural measures for minorities.
Cultural buildings should provide facilities for various types of cultural activities, such as meetings and gatherings, activities for members of minorities, and presentations of art and culture. The premises must be designed to meet the needs of the various
